Jerntorp P
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1983 May;43(3):249-54.
In order to study the objective value of the chlorpropamide alcohol flush (CPAF) the facial skin temperature and plasma acetaldehyde methods were compared to the visible response (flush/no flush) on standardized CPAF and alcohol challenge tests in 137 type 2 diabetics. Three criteria of CPAF are defined. A visible facial flush was noted in 53% of the diabetics. An increase in facial skin temperature of at least 1.0 degrees C was found in 90% of the subjects with a visible facial flush (flushers), but in only 14% of non-flushers. An increase in plasma acetaldehyde of at least 4 mumol/l was found in 86% of the flushers and in only 15% of non-flushers. Using these criteria to study CPAF all flushers satisfied at least two and 78% fulfilled all three criteria, while no non-flusher fulfilled more than one and 74% satisfied no CPAF criteria. However, with the alcohol test 5% could be identified as alcohol flushers having a falsely positive CPAF-test. In conclusion, it was possible to evaluate the CPAF test objectively with the facial skin temperature and plasma acetaldehyde methods.
为了研究氯磺丙脲潮红反应(CPAF)的客观指标,在137名2型糖尿病患者的标准化CPAF和酒精激发试验中,将面部皮肤温度和血浆乙醛方法与可见反应(潮红/无潮红)进行了比较。定义了CPAF的三个标准。53%的糖尿病患者出现可见的面部潮红。在90%有可见面部潮红的受试者(潮红者)中发现面部皮肤温度至少升高1.0摄氏度,但在无潮红者中仅14%出现这种情况。86%的潮红者血浆乙醛至少升高4μmol/l,而无潮红者中仅15%出现这种情况。使用这些标准研究CPAF时,所有潮红者至少满足两条标准,78%满足所有三条标准,而无潮红者满足标准数不超过一条,74%不符合任何CPAF标准。然而,在酒精试验中,5%的人可被识别为酒精潮红者,其CPAF试验结果为假阳性。总之,采用面部皮肤温度和血浆乙醛方法能够客观地评估CPAF试验。